On 09/05/17 10:50, Ramon Casellas wrote: > Hi Julien, > > This is indeed making me raise more questions than expected. > > - Reading the section I got the feeling that any event preventing to > reach full sync state caused a PCErr (now PCNtf) and a MUST session > close. was it the intent?
Hello Ramon, with a co-author hat on, but without loading the draft completely into brain again, yes, this was the intent. The reasoning behind is to provide an initial baseline for the state present on the PCC, agreed by both PCE and PCC. This simplifies the protocol design a bit, as we do not have to deal with state synchronization being half-done. Furthermore it gives the PCE a chance to attempt to re-negotiate the session parameters based on the problem it has seen with the PCRpt. Regards, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
